THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

(IR316)

COURSE NOTES

Dr. İlksoy ASLIM

Theories of IR

Theory of IR: A Chronology

1914-1918The First World War let to the predominance of Liberal Internationalists

Under Woodrow Wilson to challenge realist power politics that caused the War

1930s C. H. Carr criticized Liberal Internationalists for being utopian or too idealistic. His Realism was based on the concept of scarcity and the conflict between “have and have nots.”

1940sH. Morgenthau systematized realism and introduced the concept of national interest based on power.

David Mitrany developed Functionalism in opposition to realist power politics.

1950s Behavioralism aimed to make realism more scientific.

1960sHaas analyzed the European integration process with Neo-functionalist theory.

1970sRealism was criticized in a major way by Liberals who developed Transnationalism and Complex Interdependency Theory.

Marxist criticized realism through dependency and World System Theory.

1979Kenneth Waltz responded to the Marxist and Liberal challenge with his Structural/Neo-realist theory.

1984Robert Keohane and Robert Axelrod accepted two Neo-realist assumptions (anarchy and egoism) and integrated them into Neo-liberal framework to analyze international cooperation/international organizations. Neo-liberalism is also called Neo-liberal Internationalism. The main focus is/was on the analysis of international regimes.

1986/1987Constructivist challenge to Neo-liberalism/Neo-realism was developed by J. Ruggie and Alexander Wendt.

Neo-Gramscian Critical Theory was presented by Robert Cox and Stephen Gill

1990s Today IR is characterized by a predominance of Constructivism and neo-Realism while Critical Theory and Feminism are strong but minor.

Realism in International Relations

Realism is one of the dominant theoretical approaches in International Relations. There are several forms of realism. However, the key change is from classical realism to neo-realism in the end of the 1970s. The key texts of this approach are the followings and they are all security oriented.

  • E. H. Carr (1939) The Twenty Years Crisis
  • Hans Morgenthau (1948) Politics Among Nations
  • Kenneth Waltz (1979) Theory of International Politics
  • John Mearsheimer (2004) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

Main Assumptions of Realism

  1. Human beings are rational and they maximize their own interests.
  2. States are central actors in international relations

3. International relations are inherently conflictual

4. Security alliances (e.g. NATO) are a way out of conflict.

Understanding of power in realist tradition:

  • Ability to change behavior.To dominate. According to Morgenthau, power is man’s control over the minds and actions of other men. According to Dahl, power means to get other to comply by threatening them with consequences if they do not. This means that power is relational; one does not exercise power in a vacuum.
  • Power is also relative. One has to compare one’s power with that of other states. Realism sees military capability as the essence of power. But military capability depends on other factors such as the size of population, resources, etc. However, others argue that power depends on the ability to provide effective leadership, to be persuasive and have convincing ideas and resources to back them up.

E. H. Carr (1939) - The Twenty Years Crisis

E. H. Carr has tried to develop a realist theory of International Relations (IR) that does not start from assumptions about human nature. The book is an attack on Woodrow Wilson’s Utopianism or Idealism and the book is devoted to demolish central elements of this idealism.

Carr argued that we need to base our understanding of world politics on the realities power in international politics. For him, it is difficult to go against existing power relations. Furthermore, Carr does not agree that every state has the same interest in peace because not every state is satisfied with the status quo. Only status quo states can be satisfied with peace but all others would like to change things.

For these reasons, international relations will always be conflictual because there is no overarching authority in the international system that would give compulsory jurisdiction for states. States can get away with whatever their power allows them to achieve.

Hans Morgenthau (1948) Politics among Nations

The aim of the book was to consolidate realism as a theory of international relations after the end of the Second World War, and to provide support for the role of the United States (U.S.) in maintaining world order.

Morgenthau argues that world politics experiences recurrent wars because of the sinfulness of human nature (concept from Christian theology). He emphasis that we have to be realistic in what we expect from people and we need to expect that if there are conflicts of interest they are not going away without power struggle.

As a consequence of human being, international relations is characterized by states pursuing their interests defined in terms of power.

Morgenthau focuses on states as major actors in international relations. Why this focus is on the states? States are sovereign: This means that they make binding decisions for a political community and they represent their community. Sovereignty is the ability to make decisions about the community’s way of life independent from outside or inside influences. The consequence of sovereignty is that world politics is characterized by anarchy. There is no power above the state. The state is the center of decision-makings. Anarchy means that states are threatened every movement by the quest for power by other state. This leads to continuous power struggles among the states.

Structural or Neo-realism in International Relations

Kenneth Waltz shattered the aspirations especially of liberals to provide an alternative account of international relations with his publication of “Theory of International Politics” in 1979 that has served as a reference point for theoretical development for all scholars of IR since then.

According to Waltz, we cannot understand the international system by looking at the units that is the states that constitute the system. This procedure is called reductionism. This means that we can ignore whether states are democratic, authoritarian or monarchies because it does not matter for the international politics.

Waltz believes that the international system shows patters of relationships independent of the nature of units. Waltz distinguishes two types of systems: Hierarchical and anarchical. At present we do not live in a hierarchical system. There is no world government above the nation-state. Instead we live in an anarchic system where there is no higher authority, and if the states are not able to themselves, they are lost.

In contrast to Morgenthau, Waltz does not assume that states want to increase, maintain or demonstrate their power. From Waltz perspective the main aim of the states is to preserve their integrity. This is rather a defensive posture. States adjust their policy according to the balance of power. The balance of power is determined by the number of states who can seriously threaten the other’s survival. Change occurs if the anarchical balance of power system is transformed into a hierarchical system with one central power above all other states.

Offensive Neo-Realism

Many realists question whether Waltz is right in reducing theory to the systemic level. According to the central critic of John Mearsheimer Waltz only describes satisfied status quo powers. For Mearsheimer, however, the most powerful state always has to make sure to remain the “king of the hill” (the most powerful state in the system) whereas the other states have to become the most powerful state in the system. This introduces a completely different dynamic into the international relations. Offensive neo-realists disagree with defensive neo-realists perception that states look for only an “appropriate” amount of power. Mearsheimer’s, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, argues that states face an uncertain international environment in which any state might use its power to harm another. Under such circumstances, relative capabilities are very important and security requires getting as much power compared to other states as possible. The stopping power of water means that the most a state can hope for is to be a regional hegemon.

Mearsheimer’s theory makes five assumptions.

  1. The international system is anarchic
  2. Great powers possess some offensive military capability, and accordingly can damage each other
  3. States can never be certain about other states’ intentions
  4. Survival is the primary goal of the great powers.
  5. Great powers are rational actors

From these assumptions, Mearsheimer concludes that great powers fear each other, that they can rely only on themselves for their security, and that the best strategy for the states to ensure their survival is the maximization of the relative power. In contrast to the Defensive Neo-realists, who suggest that states look for only an “appropriate” amount of powerMearsheimer argues that security requires getting as much as power relative to other states as possible.Mearsheimer argues that increasing capabilities can improve a state’s security without triggering the counter response. Power maximization is not necessarily self-defeating, and hence states can rationally aim for regional hegemony.

Mearsheimer’s theory provides a structural explanation of great power war, suggesting that the main causes are located in the architecture of the international system. What matters most is the number of the great powers and how much power each controls. Great power wars are least likely in bipolarity, where the system only contains two great powers because there are fewer potential conflicts. While multipolarity is, in general, more war-prone than bipolarity, some multipolar power configurations are more dangerous than others.

Liberalism in International Relations

  • Liberal Internationalism (Woodrow Wilson) After the First World War
  • Functionalism and Neo-Functionalism (David Mitrany and Ernst Haas) In the 1940s and 1950s
  • Pluralism, Transnationalism, Interdependence Theory(Robert Keohane) In 1970s
  • Neoliberal Institutionalism (Robert Keohane) In 1980’s
  • Neo-Idealism (Francis Fukuyama) In 1980’s
  • Neoliberal Internationalism In 1990s and 2000s

Each of these manifestations of liberalism has its own focus and argumentation. Liberal internationalism and functionalism are genuine approaches to the problem of security. Neo-fuctionalism focuses on the role of regional integration. Pluralism, transnationalism and interdependence theory argued in the seventies that the grooving interconnectedness of nations through free markets has changed world politics at least for some areas and some regions. Neo-liberal institutionalism sought to meet the challenge posed by Kenneth Waltz with his emphasis on systemic theory and foundation in microeconomics. The general focus here is on how insecurity, cheating and mistrust can be overcome by cooperation. Francis Fukuyama revived idealism by arguing that the growing spread of democracy will lead to a transformation of anarchy to a more liberal democratic international system. (Neo-liberal internationalism)

One general proposition of liberalism is that there is progress in history, the way mankind has organized itself over millennia has changed for the better regarding key concerns such as individual liberty. “Liberals see the establishment of the state as a necessary port of preserving liberty either from harm by other individuals or by states. The state always is the servant of the collective will, not the master, and democratic institutions are the means of guaranteeing this. […] as long as states continue exist in relation to one another […] the liberal of providing peace and progress will forever be undermined.”[1]

Basic Assumptions of Liberalism

  1. Internal constitution of states has an impact on the nature of the international system.
  2. Change of the international system is possible because there is progress in history. According to Fukuyama, the further spread of democracy at national level will lead to a reduction of anarchy and war because democracies create a totally different international system among each other. (See E.U.)
  3. Human beings are rational (calculate costs and benefits) and they are reasonable (open for arguments and negotiations).

In General we can say that liberalism is a theory that emphasizes change, progress, freedom, reason or rationality, the free market, importance of individuals, limited state and, most relevant for the international relations scholars: cooperation or peace, self-determination of nations. One can say that liberals develop an optimistic picture of international relations. However, liberalism is within itself very contradictory. Economic liberalism emphasizes economic efficiency and the right of property owners while political liberalism wants democratic governance and emphasizes rights of individuals. However, very often democratic decision making is not efficient and takes longer. Furthermore, liberalism does not apply democratic principles to the economy. Economic decisions such as whether a firm should be closed, wages be lowered, prices be raised are not subject to democratic decision making but to the rule of “efficiency.” There is then a clash of different within liberalism.

Historical Development of Liberalism in International Relations

Liberalism is dominant in world politics in a different sense than realism. Economic liberalism is reflected in U.S. foreign policy in terms how the U.S. wants societies to be organized. This influences of economic policies by the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organizations (WTO). In this sense, liberalism is as powerful as realism in the real world but it relies on power politics to be effectual.

The starting point for idealism was the assessment that the First World War was a horrific event because of its destructiveness and bloodiness and its scope an effective mechanism needed to be developed to prevent war. In order to do so, the causes of war needed further systemic study. This is what the first international relations scholars (that were given chairs at the same time in Britain) set out to do.

The U.S. President Woodrow Wilson takes as the starting point that the origin of the war has to be sought in the way the international system was organized. According to this analysis war comes about for two reasons.

  1. More people are against war and war comes about because people are led into it. Therefore, there is a need for democratic political systems that respect the needs of minorities, who should have the right of self-determination. Authoritarian systems therefore need to be abolished and democratic states where all citizens are equal need to be created.
  2. Another origin of the war was the anarchical situation in the international system where states were free to behave how they wanted. Liberal internationalists believed that international institutions can mitigate the effects of anarchy in international relations because international institutions provide rules and regulations that inform state behavior and thus make it more predictable.

Functionalism

A next step in the development of Liberalism was the “Functionalist Theory of International Politics” developed by David Mitrany in his book,“A Working Peace System.”

Mitrany’s starting point was that the nation-state system leads to war and it needs to be reduced in importance. But, the reduction of sovereignty cannot be achieved in one step, such as the League of Nations aspired to do. A functional theory of politics is based on the idea that the main role of states is to provide functions for their people such as welfare and security.

Mitrany’s basic idea was that those interests that are common should be brought together in international institutions. He argued that cooperation only works if its task is specific. All-purpose organizations are initially not effective. Instead, the starting point should be one single common need. Many problems such as river pollution, water resources etc. cut across borders and all states concerned by this problem have a common interest to do something about it. Mitrany argued that the area of cooperation should be where the need arose, for some problems then, local or regional cooperation is enough, most problems however, will have to be dealt with on a global level. It is the explicit goal of functionalism to reduce the role of the nation state. This aim was to be achieved gradually. Mitrany thought that individuals would gradually transform their loyalties from the state to the new international agencies. So basically, in Mitrany’s vision of the world the functions of everyday social life, that is transport, health care, communications, agriculture, industrial development are no longer carried out within the confines of each sovereign state but are undertaken across frontiers on a regional or universal basis. On the other hand, realists criticized functionalism for failing to see that the loyalty of a citizen to its state is not the post-office but it is more a feeling of national unity and therefore this feeling of belong together cannot be replaced by global institutions.

Neo-Functionalism

Neo-functionalism developed out of the federalist approach to European integration. Federalists wanted integration to start with high-level politics in the area of security but functionalists argued that cooperation is easier for states in low-key area such as common standards of food hygiene. Neo-functionalists argued that eventually from such low-key areas of cooperation, there will be a spill over to more and more areas.